Sarah Wilson

This paper critically explores how ‘chemicals at the nanoscale’ are defined under the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) and compares it with the definitions established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and European Commission (EC). Focusing on the properties of particle size and solubility, it explores how Australian regulators have translated the underlying nanoscience into their formal definitional framework. It then considers the regulatory implications that may arise from the application of Australia’s specific interpretation. This study reveals significant differences in how particle size and solubility are applied within nanomaterial definitions. AICIS structures its definitional framework around these physical properties as regulatory proxies for material risk, relying heavily on archetypal behaviours and characteristics that may not apply universally across all substances. In contrast, American and European frameworks more explicitly recognize these criteria have limited predictive capability for risk assessment and have designed frameworks that allow regulators greater flexibility in identifying and assessing nanoscale chemicals. In application, AICIS’ more simplified approach creates a narrower regulatory scope that may poorly correspond with toxicological outcomes. This has direct implications for which substances are included or excluded from more stringent regulatory oversight. Future legal research should subsequently explore how AICIS’ definition is applied in practice, focusing on how regulators pursue enforcement actions for materials that challenge these regulatory parameters.

This paper critically explores how ‘chemicals at the nanoscale’ are defined under the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) and compares it with the definitions established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and European Commission (EC). Focusing on the properties of particle size and solubility, it explores how Australian regulators have translated the underlying nanoscience into their formal definitional framework. It then considers the regulatory implications that may arise from the application of Australia’s specific interpretation. This study reveals significant differences in how particle size and solubility are applied within nanomaterial definitions. AICIS structures its definitional framework around these physical properties as regulatory proxies for material risk, relying heavily on archetypal behaviours and characteristics that may not apply universally across all substances. In contrast, American and European frameworks more explicitly recognize these criteria have limited predictive capability for risk assessment and have designed frameworks that allow regulators greater flexibility in identifying and assessing nanoscale chemicals. In application, AICIS’ more simplified approach creates a narrower regulatory scope that may poorly correspond with toxicological outcomes. This has direct implications for which substances are included or excluded from more stringent regulatory oversight. Future legal research should subsequently explore how AICIS’ definition is applied in practice, focusing on how regulators pursue enforcement actions for materials that challenge these regulatory parameters.

ObjectiveThe Spatial Learning Task of Lhermitte and Signoret is an object-location arbitrary associative learning task. The task was originally developed to evaluate adults with severe amnesia. It is currently used in populations where the memory system either is not yet fully developed or where it has been compromised (e.g. epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, electroconvulsive therapy, cerebrovascular disease and dementia). Normative data have been published for paediatric cohorts and for older adults, however no data exist for the intervening adult years.MethodHere, we address this gap, collecting normative data from 101 adults aged 18–45.ResultsOur data indicate that performance on the Spatial Learning Task is not influenced by age, gender, level of education or overall IQ. Less than 10% of the variance in learning scores is associated with variability in verbal memory. Ninety percent of participants achieved perfect scores on two successive trials (T2Cr) within five or fewer trials on the Spatial Learning Task. A T2Cr score of 6 is suggestive of impairment and a T2Cr score of 7 or more is statistically abnormal.ConclusionThese data expand the clinical utility of the Spatial Learning Task in the adult population. Future work should examine performance in lower IQ cohorts, including intellectual disability, and explore sensitivity to disease factors such as laterality of mesial temporal lobe damage.